No More Page 3!

[Whoreandpeace]

No big announcement but apparently The Sun featured its last 'bare breasted beauty' on Page 3 last Friday. If so, well done to the No More Page 3 Campaign, which I signed when MNHQ first made me aware of it.

The cynic in me tells me that this 'surrender' will just be a test. If sales go down then those babes will be back in all their pouty nakedness, I'm sure.

But for now I am celebrating, even though those naked images will most likely be replaced by young women in underwear and swimwear, because fully clothed women are still not doing anything newsworthy enough for The Sun.

It will be brought back by Government decree as the construction industry grinds to a halt suffering from withdrawal symptoms.

We need to keep on pushing back against the tide of porn (and that is what it is and always was) and against the tide of prescription of what women should be wearing too. Women shouldn't have to put up with any of it.

WetAugust.

Yes, I fully support Charlie Hebdo & freedom of speech, but page 3 is not freedom of speech, it's degrading titilation that demeans all women. But I fully support your right to disagree, take the piss, laugh, etc. I'm just trying to make things better for women, & getting rid of page 3 is a step in the right direction.

What about other newspapers that have page 3, like the star and the daily sport? Why do they never get mentioned?

And there is a suspicious lack of mention of it from the sun itself.

WetAugust et al, what page 3 did for generations of boys was introduce and normalise the idea that what women and girls are for is their titillation. It contributed enormously to the objectification of women that is still rampant in our society and paved the way for the modern porn industry.

The funny part of your comments is that you think the press isn't censored, by all sorts of interested parties the press has always expressed the slant of its owners and has always been compliant to pressure but the sad part is that you perhaps don't see the harm involved in objectification of women and don't understand that 'consenting' is not a one size fits all term in a society where women are brought up to believe their worth is based on how their bodies rate with men.

Dint delude yourselves - if you campaigned against Page 3 then you are censoring the Press.

If it's legal but you don't like it - tough. That's your view and your entitled to it. But pressurising The a Sun to stop publishing it is forcing your views onto those who are content to continue seeing it published

I don't accept the pornification of women and the idea that it encourages sexualisation blah blah.

It's just bigotry.

Seen some very dissapointing comments from women on facebook saying only ugly women object, insecure people why cant they be happy in their own skin like me so they're not bothered (posted by a very orange skinned as false as they come looking lady)
It depresses me how society has conditioned women to believe they should be

Bigotry against whom?

I am very pleased about this. I would also like to see magazines taken off the top shelf in newsagents or at least covered over. Many display women in overtly sexual poses. Why is this necessary? People are going to buy these magazines but why have them on show. I don't like the thought of children being exposed to them. So many young girls and women aspire to being part of the culture of 'glamour modelling' because they feel that is their only validation.

If it's legal but you don't like it - tough. That's your view and your entitled to it. But pressurising The a Sun to stop publishing it is forcing your views onto those who are content to continue seeing it published

There was no pressure, no censorship. A lot of people signed a petition and worked to raise awareness that something was inappropriate. This made the owner of the newspaper have to think about whether it was appropriate and more importantly whether it made finacial sense to have people not buying a paper because of one section that only appeals to the heterosexual males in their readership.

No guns. No laws. No censorship.

A girl at school got suspended because she went on page three. The headmistress was livid with her.

Personally I think if men want to look at photos of bare breasted ladies let them. There's a lot worse they could be doing.

Lots of things have been legal in the past but they gradually became unacceptable because they weren't right and eventually became illegal or at the very least do frowned upon that they are not done any more by people who consider themselves responsible citizens. I'm sure we can all think of many examples.

There will always be people who hate change, who hate society becoming fairer and more equal. If I watch certain 70's sitcoms now I cringe at some of the language and scenes which were sexist, racist and bigotted. But that kind of 'art' was acceptable at the time, but society moved on and became more enlightened. I guess back then there were those who bemoaned that these 'legal' things were no longer deemed acceptable. Poor things, they just took a bit longer to catch up with contemporary thinking.

"Seen some very dissapointing comments from women on facebook saying only ugly women object, insecure people why cant they be happy in their own skin like me so they're not bothered ( posted by a very orange skinned as false as they come looking lady ) It depresses me how society has conditioned women to believe they should be"

To be fair to Page 3, last time I looked the women on there seemed more natural (although very likely airbrushed) than the reality orange TOWIE types (like your Facebook postee lady) you get all over the telly nowadays and as far as I'm aware Page 3 never featured boob jobbed women.

All these reality shows are more to blame in my opinion for the coloured hair, fake nails, huge eyelashes, marker pen eyeshadow and orange tan look that's everywhere these days.

Some women I work with I honestly couldn't tell you what they actually look like naturally, because they change their hair colour, makeup and skin tone so often; that to me is really depressing.

why on earth would your work colleague's choice of hair colour depress you?

"why on earth would your work colleague's choice of hair colour depress you?"

Hair colour, makeup and skin tone. Why don't some women like being natural? Depresses me women can't be natural.

Seems like a storm in a teacup- not sure why anyone sees a victory whatever their view on page 3. I bet it hasn't gone because people have accepted the censuring views of the campaign, but because with the easier availability of nude pics and porn, it just wasn't such a draw any more.

Personally it seems puritanical and bizarre not to expect hetero men to fine pics of naked women attractive or to thing that enjoying such images is an issue.

I also don't understand how it is possible to campaign to end page 3, but say one doesn't want to censure the press. Seems a contradiction.

Now the inaccuracy of the stuff that passes for news in this and other tabloids is something it would be worth being concerned about as it really influences peoples attitudes

My husband works in the construction trade. I know a lot of men who read the Sun. They tend to glance at it and think 'Ooh she's pretty, nice boobs'. Then turn to the football.

I really think the sentiment against it belongs in the same stable as ideas which confine women to burkas and women who wear short skirts invite rape. That men cannot control their sexuality and women's bodies stir uncontrollable urges that must be suppressed and their bodies should remain covered and taboo as a result.

And I don't think it's particularly feminist to tell young women that they shouldn't pose topless if they want to.

I'm very much against material which encourages an unhealthy damaging interest in sex such as violence and humiliation. But I don't think men finding a smiling topless girl attractive as they flip through the paper is particularly unhealthy or wrong.

Hahahaha. Their hair colour depresses you? Jesus, now that is sexist. Could you imagine if women went around judging what men wore like that? 'He has a beard, it depresses me', 'he wears slip on shoes, that makes me despondent', 'he wears open necked shirts, this fills me with paranoia'.

Hair colour, makeup and skin tone.

I don't think men finding a smiling topless girl attractive as they flip through the paper is particularly unhealthy or wrong.

It is disempowering to all women and hugely embarrassing that it even still exists. It reinforces the idea that women are decorative, "wank fodder" as someone else said, there to be judged for their appearance alone. It is mortifying and deeply, deeply anti-feminist.

And I don't think it's particularly feminist to tell young women that they shouldn't pose topless if they want to.

Of course they can. That's what porn magazines are for. Not national "family" newspapers.

Can we have a page 3 dedicated to topless men now?